Note: as promised in the podcast, here are links Ted Rall provided afterward in defense of his argument regarding the President's rhetoric on a public health insurance option, from Salon, The Plum Line, AmericaBlog and Intoxination.

Has the Bin Laden mission permanently reshaped the public's view of President Obama? Why can't Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney convince conservatives to take policy seriously? How John Hunstman has already disappointed. And what did Rick Santorum do now?

Getting Osama: What We Should Have Done In The First Place ... But Republicans Wouldn't Do listed in Foreign Policy

Osama Bin Laden's demise came after President Barack Obama restored counter-terrorism operations to America's top national security priority, reversing President George Bush's decision -- before and after the 9/11 attacks -- to de-prioritize the effort to destroy Al Qaeda.

Bush may have coined the phrase "global war on terror," but that was simply political cover for a strategic decision to prioritize "regime change," overthrowing leaders of "rogue states" with unilateral military actions, over the multilateral pursuit of stateless terror organizations.

Bush's decision was a costly one: in lives, in money and in moral authority.

The Bush administration response, argued right up until the 9/11 attacks, was that we already spend enough on counter-terrorism. On September 9, 2001, then-Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld rebutted calls to increase counter-terrorism funds instead of missile defense by saying, "the United States spends so much money...on terrorists. We spend a $11 billion trying to deal with terrorism and force protection."

The United States has concerns about taking unilateral action in a sovereign nation without their approval, and uh, so this has always been the difficulty we have with, uh -- unless, of course it's Saddam Hussein.

More importantly, President Obama made a strategic decision to prioritize the dismantling of Al Qaeda's leadership, and to act even if Pakistan wouldn't.

His pledge to do so in the presidential campaign was mocked by conservatives at the time. But the successful Bin Laden operation shows that an effective counter-terrorism strategy need not alienate allies, require jingoistic rhetoric, costs hundreds of billions of dollars or end the lives of thousands of innocents. The globe's most wanted terrorist organization leader was felled by diligent intelligence gathering, thoughtful military planning and small strike force.

Similarly, Egypt's dictator was ousted, and the cause of democracy was advanced, by non-violent protests alongside strategic, skilled diplomacy. Neither a full-blown unilateral military invasion or a costly military occupation was required.

For America to be fiscally sound and economically prosperous over the long haul, we can no longer allow rhetorical bombast to mask dangerous foreign policy adventures that worsen our national security and waste taxpayer funds.

We have experienced two contrasting foreign policy visions. One was a bust. The other has had clear successes in only two years time.

Will the President's birth certificate move strengthen his hand in the debt limit debate? Did Gov. Mitch Daniels cave to the social conservatives? Will anyone show up to the first Republican presidential debate?